Current or modern politics in the United States

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I believe he would have stayed the course on yes because it would be politically correct. Also how can you know what your answer would be to a Q like that when you have the opposite in your own family??

The Republicans are not a politically correct party though. Look at their attitudes to rape and abortion and to environmental issues.

[DTravel]

As an American who occasionally notices what's going on inside the D.C. Asylum, there are always going to be a few extremists on any axis or combination of axes of political belief. I personally am not worried about those individuals. What worries me is when some group of them seems to end up in control of their political party. Currently I do see that being the case with the American Republican party and do not see it being the case with the American Democratic party. (And I've been voting against my local incumbent Democratic party congresscritter for some time now because I see he/she as one of those extremists who's lost touch with reality. I wrote to their office to register my opposition to a bill they were in favor of and got a response back. After getting rid of the verbal glad-handing it boiled down to "Yes, but I know what's good for you better than you do." As you can guess, I was not thrilled with that attitude from someone who's supposed to be representing me in my government.)

[hound dog]

I had similar results from Senator's Feinstein and Boxer, when Pres. Obama made his Red-Line statement regarding Syria. I was, and still am, a war weary American, and to me there were doubt as to who was actually responsible, Assad, or one of the many factions of rebels, and did not want the U.S. to get involved. After receiving their "thank you for your correspondence, but I know better" replies, I sent them another letter telling them their job was not to know better but to represent their constituency, and that I would never vote for either of them in the future again. To Feinstein, I also admonished her because she and her husband would likely profit if the U.S. went to war yet again. Her husband is some kind of developer that made money in Afghanistan, IIRC.
I ended up leaving the state to care for my mother, she has Alzheimer's, a few months later, so that turned out to be an empty threat, but their responses were infuriatingly smug and patronizing.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by rodak

And watch as the democrats happily cheer the murders of between 15,000 to 32,000 thousand children every week.
The democrat "leader" Barack Hussein O. even voted in favor of partial birth abortions while a state senator in Illinois.

Would anyone care for me to post links to images of partial birth abortion such as the kind Barack Hussein O. Is in favor of?
Anyone who approves of this procedure is a heartless inhuman barbarian.

You might wish to redefine you're use of the phrase "politically correct"

Because if not wishing to see a garbage can full of dead babies makes me politically incorrect..
Than color me politically incorrect.

But Rodders, dear boy, you are opposed to all abortion in principle are you not? You are not merely opposed to late abortions; it is generally accepted in abortion laws all over the world that there is a maximum time beyond which the baby may no longer be considered a foetus only but must be considered to be a baby, and that abortion beyond that time is actually infanticide. Rather, and please contradict me if I am misrepresenting you, you are against abortion per se? In this case, to cite the iniquities of late abortion is a red herring; you wouldn't allow early abortion either?

What would you say in cases where the woman was a victim of rape? Are there different catagories of rape, and does it have to be "legitimate rape" (as defined by Todd Akin) before the state should provide the victim with free access to an abortion? Or as with Richard Mourdock, would you argue that the victim has a duty to God to both bear and raise her rapist's baby?

If the answer to any of my questions is "Yes", then I would agree that your position is politically incorrect and it would tend to endorse my previous point about the political incorrectness of the Republican Party and its philosophical outlook. This is the party of the War on Women.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Its a curious thing. I notice a similar dynamic in support for gay rights-- the Republican party is hostile, except in families where someone somebody cares about is gay.

The Republicans have a long history of 'absolute values' unless it directly affects them personally and then exceptions are allowed. These applications have occurred in drug use, gay family members, mental illness etc. Larry Wilmore had an interesting panel last week on his show about 'snitching' and he quite accurately pointed out that this type of self serving behaviour has little to do with race, (excepting Suge Knight's rap which given his current status is rather self serving), but rather that any self defined group will find a rationalization to explain why it is acceptable for them to break the social covenant.

Before the standard conservative apologists leap in with "BUT LEFTIES DO IT TOO!" remember that conservatives claim this moral high ground as theirs; immoral behaviours are bad because they are self evident and there is no room for offset. Mandatory sentencing and all that. Well that practice was okay until white boys started getting arrested too. Total hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Here's a question no on ever asked Dick Cheney (but should have):
"Would you have supported rights for gay people, had your daughter not been gay?

-- and if, as is likely, the answer to that one is "no" -- "what is the basis for a moral argument that alters depending on whether or not your family member is affected?"

He was asked this and suggested that some issues go beyond party and ideological lines. Fair enough. But when he truly failed was the follow up question of "if any conservative value can be considered as flexible then what does the party stand for?" Naturally he responded that the interviewer was attempting to ambush him.

Keep in mind this is the same Dick Cheney who just said that Obama is almost a traitor because he wants to back off on Iranian sanctions... the same Dick Cheney who in 1999 said "politics are irrelevant! US oil companies, (well Haliburton), are losing access to the Iranian oil windfall thanks to sanctions and that they should be dropped!"

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But Rodders, dear boy, you are opposed to all abortion in principle are you not? You are not merely opposed to late abortions; it is generally accepted in abortion laws all over the world that there is a maximum time beyond which the baby may no longer be considered a foetus only but must be considered to be a baby, and that abortion beyond that time is actually infanticide. Rather, and please contradict me if I am misrepresenting you, you are against abortion per se? In this case, to cite the iniquities of late abortion is a red herring; you wouldn't allow early abortion either?

As a male I tend to defer this issue to the better sex that actually do the heavy lifting in this issue. That said if I were to suggest a protocol be established where abortions were to be restricted it would only be considered, (and again with women as the overwhelming advocates), after every single barrier by the conservatives and fundamentalists was removed. I am always amazed at the immaturity of those who rail on about 'late term abortions' while they ignore the contribution factors such as "demanding tests and then making women look at a fetus" all in the effort to extend the date. Allowing fake abortion services while attacking Planned Parenthood and other responsible services when those fake services merely work to delay in the hopes that it gets too late. That conservatives and fundamentalists spend so much time fighting sex ed and access to contraception and then have the audacity to say "well if you got pregnant it must be your fault... SLUT!"

Once the reality in the US is that a young couple can walk into a Cathedral at 1:00 AM and look at the Priest and say "where are the condoms" and he says "if you'd like to talk first I am here but if not they are at the front doors in a basket" then maybe I will listen to the ignorance and lack of biology that constitutes these misogynists.

Late term abortions are next to unknown and maybe there is some room for discussion as to what is a reasonable end date. But if all the discussion is going to be is merely worst case scenarios then lets consider remembering the images of women dying due to back street illegal abortions.

All this contrasted against the reality that the current teen preggers winners are the RED STATES that endorsed George Bush's abstinence protocol. They have actually exceeded Harlem and other black conclaves that used to be the highest contenders for 'unwed mothers'.

Grow up first and then we'll talk abortion.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What would you say in cases where the woman was a victim of rape?

Irrelevant. I know you had more there but this concept that we have logical exclusions is so typical of the conservative mindset. Think about why Loretta Lynch's nomination is being held up? All because the Republicans believe that if a woman is sexually trafficked they are all about helping her out.. unless she was raped and made pregnant... then the law of the land does not apply. If anyone needs the right to the procedure it is a woman who has been sexually trafficked. But this is an old standard by the Republicans to pander to the Fundamentalists where they blackmail 3rd world countries and in this case 2nd and 3rd world women just to make the most ignorant self satisfied.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by rodak

I oppose all abortion because it is murder.
Scoundrel you need to look inside of yourself and ask.. Is the image below really who you are? is this really what you believe in and support?
I truthfully hope not. I think you are better than this.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/bfbcb6404561039

You do know that that is the cover of a Heavy Metal album ?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I believe he would have stayed the course on yes because it would be politically correct. Also how can you know what your answer would be to a Q like that when you have the opposite in your own family??

Well, we can observe of various Republicans that up to the point that their child made their sexual orientation publicly known, they did not take that position; some explicitly u-turned, like Rob Portman, others like Cheney are a little bit fuzzier.

I did a bit of looking for earlier statements by Cheney -- he was challenged on this point by Joe Lieberman some years ago during the vice presidential debate.

The basic logical and moral problem is this: How can you defend the idea that you'll support the legal discrimination against a group of people, unless one of them happens to be a relative?

That's not a legitimate position.

[hound dog]

Since you failed to address any of the points I made in my post, rodak, I take that to mean you believe a fetus has the right to go to full term in a pregnancy and then get born, after that all bets are off and it's on it's own.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by rodak

The War on Women began in the 1990's with the Clinton's.. democrats.
When Bill was not able to keep it in his pants it was Hillary Clinton "a woman" who would lead the charge to destroy the woman who made accusations against the Sexual Predator known as Bill Clinton.

Do you mean Linda Tripp by any chance? Malignant person who gets no sympathy from me. I feel quite a bit of pity for Ms Lewinsky, who was no angel but much more sinned against than sinning IMHO.

Originally Posted by rodak

There is no Republican war on women that the dems did not already start.
Hillary Clinton may be the most sexually cheated on woman in the democrat party.

Scary woman; on one level I can't really blame Bill for playing away when I tremble at the mere thought of doing the deed of darkness with Hillary. The preying mantis springs to mind. But I do not see in practical terms how Bill Clinton's trouser problems constitute a war on women remotely comparable with the systematic Republican refusal to support the right of women to control their own fertility.

Originally Posted by rodak

As to abortion.
I oppose all abortion because it is murder.
Scoundrel you need to look inside of yourself and ask.. Is the image below really who you are? is this really what you believe in and support?
I truthfully hope not. I think you are better than this.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/bfbcb6404561039

I see abortion as an extremely grave and serious thing to do; anyone who would take this step casually and with indifference to the gravity of it is repugnant to me. But I totally support the right of any and all women to do as they see fit in this regard; it's their body and no one elses. I will say though that if any woman I was in a relationship with took this step to terminate a pregancy begun in our relationship, that would terminate our relationship as well as the pregancy. I would never ever ever forgive her for that. But neither would I try to stop her as others have in the past by, for example, taking legal action. It is still her body and her right to choose; but my rights include refusing to support her decision.

I'm not blase about abortion. But as a bearer of the Y chromasome, I do not believe it is for me to tell any woman what she may or may not do when controlling her own body. Were there to be a referendum on access to legal abortions I would restrict the right to vote to women only. Neither should we assume that women would be overwhelmingly in favour of legal abortions; I know quite a few women who are vehemently against legal abortions. But they have a right to that position; they have skin in the game, as it were. I am pretty sure though that the majority of women with votes would want to vote for the right to choose.